horizon parking rejected appeal

Coupon-mad

marticus89 said:

Little update. Just came back from holiday yesterday and found court claim letter waiting for me in letterbox. Issue date 2nd December. As 5 days after issue date have passed, I have now completed Acknowledgment of Service.
I will now start to prepare the defence.

Gladstones? Use the special defence para 3 wording for Gladstones claims which is linked in the Template Defence thread.

marticus89

Here is the POC. I’m finishing to draft the defence then I’ll send it.

Coupon-mad

Have you added a line denying that there was a Parking Charge of £95 on any signage. Any signs at that location state £85 (but liability is denied for any sum at all). Thus, the claim is exaggerated by £10 on the PCN itself, plus the double recovery of the false £70 enhancement dressed up as a fee or damages.

marticus89

“1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3. The alleged parking event relates to vehicle [REG] at [PETROL STATION/SITE, FULL ADDRESS] on [DATE] at approximately [TIME]. The Defendant (the driver) attended the site to use the on-site car wash and, due to a queue, remained on site longer than would otherwise have been necessary while waiting for and then using the car wash. Before using the car wash, the Defendant spoke with a petrol station worker and communicated the intention to use the car wash, reasonably expecting that this would be recorded/authorised in whatever system the site uses to permit car wash users to remain on the premises. The Defendant understands that the petrol station worker apparently failed to enter the Defendant’s vehicle registration number into that system, which is why a Parking Charge Notice was later issued. The Defendant denies that any enforceable parking contract was agreed to pay the sum now claimed (or any added sums), and the Defendant disputes that any clear and prominent terms were brought to the driver’s attention that would make a PCN payable in circumstances where the driver was a genuine car wash customer waiting in a queue.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'. “

This would be my defence. From google maps I can’t see any details of the signs at the location. 

Also I have the POPLA card to play if I want as described in one of my previous comments. 

marticus89

Defence sent. Fingers crossed until next update.

Coupon-mad

That was a bit rushed? You didn't add what I suggested and didn't use the special Gladstone's version with Chan and Akande.

marticus89

I got to be honest, it was a bit rushed indeed, but I wasn’t sure if the last day to send was 4th or 5th. Hopefully it will be enough to scare them off.

Coupon-mad

No because Gladstones do continue all the way to hearings. You will have to bring up the point about the £85/£95 that you missed, and exhibit Chan & Akande, at WS stage then.

Le_Kirk

Irrelevant now but: -

With an issue date of 02/12/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 07/12/25 and before or on 21/12/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 05/01/26